Mona Lisa Smile

At this stage in my life I am the father to a 19 year old daughter. Often as
we chat I notice that she is amazed at how life was handled back in those olden
times when I was growing up. These conversations came to mind while watching
Mona Lisa Smile. Sure it meets every accepted definition of a ‘chick flick’ but
there is more to it, there are aspects that cut right to the heart of one of the
main purposes of cinema, the recreation of other times and places. The film is
set in 1953 in Wellesley, a very upscale college for young women of some means.
College students of today, like my daughter, would be aghast looking at the
curriculum which included such classes as deportment, manners, grooming and even
how to place tableware. Back then that was the training a young woman required
for life, hoe to be a wife, hostess and mother. There is a line where the
bohemian art teacher Katherine (Julia Roberts) is counseling an exceptionally
bright student Joan (Julia Stilles). When asked what she will do after college
the only answer that made sense to Joan is to be married, the only ultimate goal
she had considered. Of course the film has to incorporate the other types of
young women present then, come to think of it they are still around. There is
Betty (Kirsten Dunst), the one that needs to be the best, the center of
attention and looks down at those around her. For a little contrast there is the
wild child Giselle (Maggie Gyllenhaal), chain smoking free spirit that others
see as just strange. While watching this film you have to remember the times it
reflected. It was post World War II, the cold war was just started but women had
a taste of freedom and responsibility during the war they never felt before. For
many the return to the pre-war gender caste system was almost welcomed, but for
a few like Katherine, the future had to hold more for women. What may not work
for many people today is we have moved on from the situation displayed here.
While there is still a long way to go young women in college today would never
be told they had to be content with the role of housewife. To those of my
daughter’s generation this seems more like complete fiction than a depiction of
times past. The dialogue was a bit on the predicable side, bordering on endless
clichés. The move often falls into the trap of trying too hard, like the student
that raise his hand with every question the teacher asks. There is too much déjà
vu here.

This is one of the best possible collection of actresses possible. I never
really thought of Julia Roberts as the senior member of a cast but I guess it
had to happen. She still has the ability, talent that has only grown over the
years. A true testament of her dedication to the craft of acting is her
willingness to frequently stand in the shadow of her young co-stars. Roberts
does not dominate the stage, she gives the others a fighting chance. Of course,
the co-stars are among the best young Hollywood has to offer. Dunst is really
attempting to grow as an actress. With parts like Virgin Suicides and
Crazy/Beautiful she is moving away from the cheerleader types into roles with
some greater depth. Here, she plays against her former type with a part that is
stuck up and grating, and often over played. Gyllenhaal is a little out of place
here. Her forte is definitely the more quirky roles like her excellent
performance in The Secretary. Here, her role is mostly a counter point to the
other students with her daring (for the time) sexual nature and self assurance.
Giselle is already a rebel, of sorts contrasted with the nice girls around her.
The one role that really shone was Stilles. There is something about her
enthusiasm that carries her character. Like Dunst she is growing nicely into
more mature roles.

The director of this opus, Mike Newell has been around for some time now. He
was at the helm of such flicks as Donnie Brasco, Pushing Tin and Four Weddings
and a Funeral. Here, however, there is little that comes across as novel. He
seems to take from films like Dead Poets Society to tell the story. As mentioned
previously for those of the older generation the tale has been told before, for
those who are younger, little is provided to permit them to identify with the
plight of the characters. The film comes across as too sappy for its own good.
On the technical side the film is excellent. There is attention paid to the
details of the time, the style of make-up and dress, the mannerisms all do
recreate the early fifties. Each shot is framed and lit to perfection but unlike
other films Newell has directed the pacing seemed a little off. There is a lack
of flow between some scenes.

The DVD was up to contemporary standards. The video was presented without
flaw providing a realistic color palette. This was particularly noticeable with
the flesh tones of the actresses, the pale skin contrasting against the bright
red lipstick, popular at that time. The Dolby audio was a bit on the flat side
offering little for the surround speakers to do. There was some ambience
provided but the overall sound stage was somewhat unrealistic. The commentary
track by Newell was the all too typical ‘I loved working with these people’
faire. He gushes at the opportunity to direct this bevy of actresses. One
interesting featurette was a little pick into what life was like in the fifties
for a young woman. For someone of my age it was a time warp back many decades.
While interesting for its technical excellence the story of the film fails to
meet the standards of good story telling. We have seen it before, albeit not
with such a cast. It doesn’t work as a feminist film, there is little real
conflict here but it is nice to look at.